tv Federal Officials Testify on Efforts to Denuclearize North Korea CSPAN September 12, 2017 9:29pm-11:57pm EDT
before we tackle the hearing i would like to remind the audience members the disruption of proceedings is against the law and will not be tolerated also wearing themed shirts while seated in the room is certainly permissible holding up signs during the proceedings is not permissible and will be suspended until capital police can restore order. with that, i would like to call us to order for our hearing this morning and ask all the members to take their seats if you cou could. on september 3, north korea detonated a nuclear device that's according to news reports is stronger than any of the
previous tests combined. this represents the latest advancement in north korea's intercontinental ballistic missile programs which now posed an urgent threat to the united states. moreover, the apparent speed in which the advancements have occurred are challenging the security structure across east asia creating dangerous instability in the region and that instability will likely be dealing with for decades to come. so today the committee is going to discuss the tools that must be deployed and utilized to address the threats. i believe the response from the united states and our allies should be supercharged. we need to use every ounce of leverage. when i had breakfast this
morning with the secretary, we laid out shoes that includes sanctions and diplomacy and projecting information into north korea to put pressure on this regime. time is running out. let's be clear sanctions can still have an important impact. the advanced weapons programs rely on foreign sourced technology. much of the programs are made outside of the country and north korea pays an inordinate amount of money and has to have the currency to do it to run this expensive program. since it requires hard currency that is the bikini is healed years have been wasted as the
sanctions have been weakened allowing north korea to access and build the programs. any sanction that crib is the access to the technology is urgently needed. congress has done its part to ramp up the pressure and we passed the sanctions act last february authored by myself and the ranking member and in july we increase the tools as part of the package last year including sanctions on north korea and russia into the program. part of that included targeting of slave labor exports and part of it refined the focus on banking and was focused on
exports around of the world. there was a unanimous adoption of un security council resolution which the ambassador called the strongest sanctions ever imposed in response to the ballistic missile test. she is now hard at work on another resolution. to be effective, the tools need to be implemented aggressively. the administration deserves credit for increasing the pace and i appreciate the treasury secretaries of state men's but more are coming but we need to rip up the number of designations. they do not require beijing's cooperation. we could designate banks and
companies in that are giving ta choice between doing business with and i would observe not doing business with the united states where many of the companies would risk bankruptcy for these institutions. earlier this year, the treasury sanctioned the regional chinese bank and that is a good start but we must target major chinese banks doing business with north korea such as the bank and even big state-owned banks like the agricultural bank of china.
just as we pressed china to enforce the sanctions banning imports of north korea by air and sea food we should press the countries to end all trade with north korea. this nuclear risk demands it. sanctions are not the only way to apply pressure on the regime. i just returned from south korea where people are on average. we were there when the missile was launched over japan. it doesn't matter if you're talking to government officials or the business community over the average person on the street, they all understand the threat. so i am pleased that the missile defense system has been fully deployed. i'm also pleased that the administration is strengthening deterrence through the sales in japan and south korea for whiche discussed this morning.
finally, we need to do much better at getting information into north korea so that the north koreans can better understand the brutality and corruption of the self-serving regime. they are already pressuring the regime preheating some unrest and increasing defections from north korea, but i'm afraid here our efforts graded poorly. international broadcasting and so many% just have not been a priority and that is unacceptable in this situation. while we should take an approach in nortand north korea, the reas this regime will never be at peace with its people, its neighbors were with us. and now is the time to apply that pressure. with that said let me turn to the ranking member of the committee, mr. eliot engel of
new york. >> mr. chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. you and i have worked together for a long time on the korean situation. we had a hearing on this topic to start the year and the committee is working in a bipartisan manner with fans the toughest sanctions that are now u.s. law. yesterday the council unanimously agreed to the resolution to 375 in response to the regime's. we can hear directly from the administration. i am grateful for your unwavering leadership on this issue. welcome to the committee and thank you for your service. the acting assistant secretary, i have tremendous confidence in
the window or other career diplomats but it's hard to believe that nearly eight months in today's there is no nominee for the assistant secretary for east asia and pacific affairs and the same goes for the ambassador and south korea undersecretary for arms control and international security and a range of other senior department officials. this administration says north korea is its top foreign policy priority. but the inexplicable reluctance to get the personnel in place bigger undercoating their own strategy and to global security now we need all hands on deck. that also gets to one of the main questions.
some have said he will never give them up regardless of the pressure. i've been to north korea twice as you know and i can tell you and everybody else this is not a regime that looks at the world d of the way any other government does. they are willing to sacrifice their own people to achieve that end. that makes them incredibly dangerous. the military options in the contingency are grim and it's hard to see how devastating the conflict on the peninsula would be. as the conflict escalates into a war we could be measured in the cost to millions of lives lost. time is running out. once the regime has nuclear weapons that can strike the united states they will immediately raise questions
about the security commitments. the two-hour alliance partners japan and south korea, nuclear capabilities would likely embolden them to engage in other bad behavior such as harassment of the analyze and continued proliferation of nuclear technologies. some even speculate the regime might seek the unification of the peninsula on its own terms so we need a smart strategy. a few years later we moved north korea from the state sponsor of terrorism list to join the six party talks. since he assumed power, the missile tests have increased in
frequency and this year is the start of a trumpet administration we've seen an alarming increase in the frequency and of course a few weeks ago what appears to be a nuclear device. so where do we go from here? personally, i agree with the secretary defends that we are never out of diplomatic solutions although i'm not sure president trump shares that view or even knows his views on this. he doesn't seem to be anywhere near close to sitting down for talks of any kind much less than negotiations. first order of business should be a moratorium on testing to hold the progress of the nuclear program objective as north korea and we cannot lose sight of that. in my view we've not exhausted economic pressure in the sanctions and we need to do what we can to keep the pressure up
on the regime but at the same time we increase pressure we must also ramp up coordination with our allies and demonstrate the military measures act the ready both to reassure the allies and he tore the regime from any action that can lead to deadly escalation. i'm interested in hearing from the witnesses today. under ordinary circumstances i would say this is a tall order. it is making the situation even more challenging. those like threats of fire and fury, shaming the allies in consistently from one day to the next on china or the economic partnership taking a fight right at this time, talk about expanding the nuclear arsenal and the proliferation of these devastating weapons undermine the credibility of the office of the president and the u.s.
government effectively u.s. leadership and drivin in drivine between washington and our friend creating great uncertainty in china and the cooperation we need as the leader is single-minded and ruthless. the facing national security challenge and need principled leadership. we need to be standing with our allies, acting with integrity and reaffirming our commitment. the president needs to leave on the global stage pushing china and russia to enforce the sanctions effectively and build a consensus about the path forward not waiting to see what is reacting with the first words that come to mind. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses about what the leadership should look like in this crisis. and how we find the right path forward. thank you again and i yield back. we are pleased to be joined by a distinguished panel we have with
us or the acting assistant secretary in the bureau of east asian affairs at the department of state and as a career member of the foreign service she spent the last 20 years working on u.s. policy in europe and asia focused on the countries of the former soviet union and east asia of the terrorism and financial intelligence of the department of the treasury where he focused on illicit finance. and so we welcome both our witnesses to the committee. without objection, the witnesses for prepared statements are going to be made a part of the record and all members here will have five calendar days to submit any statements or additional questions or any extraneous material for the record. with that, i would suggest and
would begin with you if you could summarize your remarks and then we will go to questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> ranking member angle, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the ever increasing challenge that north korea poses. the threat posed by the ballistic missile and nuclear program is grave. six nuclear tests on september 3 is an unacceptable provocation that ignores repeated calls from the international community for a change in their behavior. it followed the august 28 ballistic missile launch that overflew missions in al qaeda,
japan and launches in july. the provocations represent a tangible threat to the security of japan and south korea in allies and to the entire globe. we cannot allow such violations of international law to continue. north korea also made threats regarding the ability to hit guam and other parts of the united states. the secretary of defense has made clear we have the ability to defend ourselves and our allies from any attack, and there are commitments that remain ironclad. this administration has developed a strategy of applying international pressure to hold them to account. first, we continue to push for strong un sanctions. last night the security council passed another significant set of international sanctions on the second set of sanctions in the last two months and animus we adopted by the un security
council. second, we are using domestic laws to impose sanctions on individuals and entities that enable vdp arcade illicit activities. third, we are pressing the countries to fully implement security council resolution and sanctions and harmonize the domestic regime's with the security council designations. fourth, we are urging the community to cease actions and increase its diplomatic isolation and fifth, we are calling on the countries to cut trade ties and choke off the revenue sources that financed the regime's weapons programs. even as we pursue the denuclearization on the korean peninsula, as it was mentioned by the ranking member it is a central part of our strategy. we have deployed the system to the republic of korea and
continue to take other measures to prepare to respond to any dpr k. attacks, whether the united states, south korea, japan, overwhelming force. we have been clear we are not seeking the regime change and we do not seek accelerated reunification or an excuse to send troops north of the demilitarized zone that we do seek peaceful transition and north korea stops belligerent actions and is not presenting a threat to the united states were allies. it will depend on cooperation from international partners especially china and we are clear i've been viewing the uneven support for measures against the dpr k.. china has taken some notable steps on implementing sanctions, but we would like to see them do more. we continue to engage with china
and russia to further the dpr k., but if they do not act, we will use the tools at our disposal. last month, we've ruled out sanctions targeting russia and the chineschinese individuals as that are doing the illicit trade in north korea. while there's more work to be done we see encouraging signs of progress increasing the pressure on the regime. countries spanning the globe and strong statements against the tests in the most recent nuclear test. countries expelled sanctioned north korean officials, prevent certain individuals from answering the jurisdiction, reduce the size of the north korean diplomatic missions in the country and cancel or downgrade diplomatic engagement or exchanges. in recent day the recent days wo announcements about their efforts to downgrade relations on north korea. countries have whole to get a
visa issuance and are phasing out the use of these workers. south korea, japan and australia implemented unilateral national sanctions targeted entities and individuals and european partners are collaborating on maximizing pressure on the dpr k.. despite all of this, we have yet to see a notable change in the dangerous behavior or signs that it's interested in the talks on the denuclearization. we will continue to step up sanctions are the entities enabling the dpr k. regime and its programs following the nuclear test we are pressing hard for the security council resolution which was adopted last night and we hope that these new sanctions including textiles, positions on oil and shipping etc. they continue to
exert their leverage on the dpr k. i-india should be clear that we will never accept them as a nuclear state. we continue to work to develop additional defense measures to protect the people of the united states and also of our allies. the three remaining u.s. citizen who's been unjustly detained we will continue to reiterate the willingness to resolve this issue to a diplomacy and the interest in the serious engagemenengagement we will expt option but with clear eyes about the past track record of violating the negotiated agreements. thank you again for letting me testify today, and i am looking forward to your questions. >> thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you to update you on measures the treasury department is undertaking in the broad state and the broad administration efforts to deal with provocations and threats posed by north korea. in order to constrain the international community has unanimously enacted multiple resolutions. in fact with each provocation by the dictator, the nations of the world responded with tightening constraints of embargoes and under the previous administration the united nations had already prohibited trade in the matters such as arms, luxury goods, monuments and the maintenance of offices and subsidiaries in their bank accounts and while it is inhibiting the request for the weapons of mass distraction, it wasn't enough. august 5, the administration worked with other members in the council to pass resolution 2371 striking at the core of the
generation. that resolution drafted by the united states embargoes all north korean iron, lead and lana food and requires nations to cap the slave labor. very importantly, last night under the ambassador's leadership, the united states passed with a security council resolution 2375, which now targets the few remaining sources of revenue. very importantly the export of textiles and restrict the ability to require revenue from the slave labor and it cuts off about 55% of the petroleum products are going into north korea and bands further joint ventures in the regime. they are central to our efforts to mobilize the community and denied the funds to the west programs. the fact however is north korea has been under the sanctions for a decade and nevertheless made
strides toward the goal of building an icbm. as it is the case in any agreement the effectiveness of the security council resolutions depends upon implementation and enforcement. kim is. to transfer the funds and to pay for the goods both listeners and illicit. it is only a number of finite ways that north korea can raise the amount of foreign exchange and for many years it's been the gravity of the generation. the estimates prior to the security council resolutions, the shipments brought in more than a billion dollars a year to the regime. north korea made an additional 500 million or so from the seafood and textile than what
the night around 800 million that they were generating in the previous years. this is why the resolutions are so important. important. again effective implementation of this and all of the prior resolutions is essential. consistent with this, on august 22 in the trade with china. we estimate collectively the companies were responsible for importing nearly half a billion dollars worth of north korean coal between 2014 and 201 2016 e sent two messages. first was north korea we intended to deny the regime in s last remaining sources of revenue, unless and until it reversed its course on denuclearize them. the second message was for china tracking the trade and banned goods such as coal despite and we will act even if the chinese government will not. we targeted a different type of
revenue, labor and designated the individuals involved in that set of actions and we also took actions in march engaged in the press on the revenue generation networks we singled out 37 entities involving most types of trade. mr. chairman, i want to share another type of scheme in which north korea is engaged. the regime employs deceptive shipping practices for the origin of goods. ..
in this particular case, this vessel registered in saint kitts and nevis sat in the port for a while and headed back out to water ultimately talking in china with north korean sanctions. the second slide which we'll show now is yet another example in this particular example you have a vessel that pulled into north korea kept its trance marked drop in violation of maritime law, talked in russia.
another vessel from jamaica with the jamaican flag pulled in and picked up the call and headed to china again to circumvent u.n. sanctions. mr. chairman the other prong of our effort is to close and on the way north korea seeks to access the international financial system. because of the sanctions regimes we have in place it is difficult for north korean individuals and indices -- entities to do business in their true name so that's why they maintain representatives abroad nor engage in all manner of obfuscation and in fact i dealt with many of these entities when i served in the private sector. to help conceal north korea's overseas footprint these individuals are crucial to the north korean regime because they have the expertise needed to establish fund companies open bank accounts and conduct transactions to move and launder funds. it is incumbent upon the
financial services industry both here and abroad to stay vigilant and i urge those who might be implicated in the establishment of shell or front companies or anyone who is aware of such entities to come forward with that information now before they find themselves swept up in our net. we are closing in on north korea's trade representatives. it's a rare party designated several bank and trading operatives in china cuba russia and vietnam and we are closely coordinating with the department of justice and others to topple these networks that are transferring funds. the chairman mentioned her actions against the bank of banned on. we have designated that bank under section 311 of the usa patriot act and found it to be about primary money-laundering concern and issued a notice of proposed rulemaking. i recognize some overtime of the committee and therefore i will wrap up my comments. suffice to say our actions this
was the first treasury department actions over a decade that targeted the non-korean non-north korean bank for facilitating north korean financial activity. demonstrates our commitment to take action. we look forward to taking action with the chinese were possible and in the event that is not possible we will move forward to safeguard the international financial system. >> assistant secretary billingslea thank you very much. let me make a point. in terms of when we have seen sanctions that were effective, in 2005 we had sanctions on the bank. at that point in time and talking to a senior defector that works in their missile program he indicated death because we cut off the hard currency they had to shut down their icbm program. one of the things he indicated also or was indicated by the conversations we had with senior defectors was that during that period of time the ability of the regime or the dictators they
called him, to get his hands on our currency was blocked and the inability of the dictator to be able to pay his generals and this was that quote, it's a bad position for a dictator to bn. in retrospect we therefore see two things happened during that period of time in terms of the desperation of the situation within the kim regime. this was under his father. kim jong-il. we have the ability to replicate that if we have the will to do what was done in 2005 and in 2005 it was maybe a dozen banks that were being used. at that time treasury found north korea was counterfeiting 100-dollar u.s. bills and they gave treasury the authority to do this until such time as the department of state force them
to lift the asset freezes but during that time we had an enormous amount of pressure being brought to bear. in this particular case, and let me use your words here but it is china that is primarily involved in the support system in terms of i estimate 90% of the hard currency that the regime needs. now we have managed to cut off a lot of funding because it's very expensive to run and icbm program or a nuclear weapons program. billions and billions and billions of dollars. north korea's money has no value so they have to get this foreign currency into the country in order to pay for it on a month-to-month leases in terms of what they are trying to build out. said if china wishes to avoid future measures such as those imposed on the various company sanctioned for illegal trade purposes it urgently needs to take demonstrable public steps to eliminate north korea's trade
and financial access. that's the point to us here in congress. some of our opinion on this in terms of congress is affected by the fact that china's tie spanks even state-owned banks still do business with north korea. that's got to end completely. we cannot accept half measures on this. these transactions par with supports the regime's nuclear program and i understand the administration is pressing the regime to take action here. understand that many of these banks have significant operations in the united states and that there would be consequences to our economy. however these banks u.s. presence is the very thing that makes our sanctions so powerful. they would rather do business with us then north korea in terms of how consequential that
is to these institutions so at what point do we designate these major chinese banks for doing business with north korea? we have done our our reach to beijing with limited results but should we demonstrate the seriousness with which we take the north korea nuclear threats while further isolating that regime in north korea, kim jong-un, from the financial system that he uses to build out his atomic weapons program? >> chairman first let me say that china and russia are to be recognized for supporting the adoption of the two most recent u.n. security council resolutions which are significant for the clampdown that they enable us to place on kim jong un's -- however we been very clear that if china wishes to avoid further measures such as that which happened to the bank of banned on puig urgently
need to see demonstrable action. i cannot tell the committee today that we have seen since patient evidence of china's willingness to shut down korea revenue flows to expunge illicit actors from its banking system or to expel the various north korean middleman and brokers to continue to establish fund companies. we need to see that happen. and let me just both our assistant secretary say this, last night we saw the security council unanimously approved its third u.n. sanctions resolution this year on north korea and this latest measure restricts the regimes oil imports while banning textile exports and joint ventures however the nature of the security council means that this was a compromise to ensure the regime cannot claim this compromise that came out of this as a victory which is what they will try to do we
have got to demonstrate the impact of these new international sanctions by making certain that this time no one is skirting those sanctions, so what steps will the department stayed in treasury take in the coming days to implement the new security council resolution and how will these actions that you are about to take send this clear message to kim jong-un on the reality that this time we are going to follow through with enforcement and give them in terms of additional hard currency? >> thank you mr. chairman. it's very clear in the process of ramping up a peaceful pressure campaign on the north korean regime that one of the key elements is to keep the global coalition that we have got behind the sanctions together and to keep every single country in the coalition
working actively to continue to squeeze on trade, on labor, on financial transactions, on shipping etc. and what we been doing in the department of state is working across-the-board with every one of our diplomatic partners around the world. the secretary raises the north korea issue in every single one of his meetings with foreign leaders and we have seen a great response from countries around the world who are increasingly outraged over north korea's provocative behavior. so we have really been working hard to close the net. we have seen diplomatic establishments closed, ambassadors kicked out, the north korean representatives kicked out, all kinds of the philippines announced recently they are going to cut trade with north korea so we are having an effect on a lot of these networks that the north koreans
have built around the world. i think the sanctions, 2371 last month announced 2375 last night we are going to be working aggressively to make sure that we and all of our partners around the world are working with every country that we can to make sure that every countries has the capacity to track illicit transactions to go after violators and raising consciousness for those folks also giving them the tools to go after those bad actors is what we are focused on. we are trying to clean up industries and give countries the ability to track better ships that are flag under their flag etc. so i think we are still working on implementing these two recent u.n. security resolutions. we have an ongoing close dialogue with the chinese and what they are doing to track sanctions and we share a lot of information with them. but we will also drive them to shut down networks that we find. >> thank you secretary thornton.
i would like to go to secretary engel for his questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. you know when i was in north korea, and this was a while back , one of the things that struck me we had just deposed saddam hussein and one of the top north korean officials, it was a very high-ranking official, said to us, saddam hussein didn't have nuclear weapons and look where he is now from those two trips i took that the one thing that rang in my ears and now of course they are carrying out those horrific words. let me secretary thornton, let me ask you, in europe we have
nato obviously. in asia we don't have a treaty group like nato, so how do we reassure in your view our allies and our resolve to tokyo because we are afraid of what might happen in los angeles or guam or any other place? how do we reassure them, our allies? >> thank you mr. ranking member. i think we have been working very very closely with both south korea and japan but also with all the other countries in the asia-pacific region on confronting the north korea challenge. obviously we have a very close and continuing conversation with both japan and korea not just
the state department that the department of defense on managing our alliances. obviously we have been talking to both japan and korea as the chairman mentioned about additional defensive needs and capabilities that they may have that they want to move ahead on and so i think the reassurance that we have been providing them with and the constant close communication with them and with others in the region has been significant reassurance to them about our ongoing commitment and defense of our allies. >> thank you very much. secretary billingslea can the u.s. and could you identify the top say 25 firms that compose of north korea's ballistic network and if so would you be willing to provide the information to this committee in classified form if necessary? >> ranking member, yes we would
be pleased to have a classified discussion with you on a number of north korean entities that we are actively targeting however once we choose to move with designations and blocking of assets and so forth we would want keep that information at close holds of the money doesn't flee in advance of our actions? >> it would be an interest of this committee for such a gathering so we will be in touch with you or we will do it together the chairman and eye. let me ask you about these entities. if beijing and the other relevant governments haven't taken citizen action in curbing activities have we taken action to designate these entities at the u.s.?
>> yes sir we have. we have done a couple of ways of that under this administration. our august 22 actions that i referenced were probably noteworthy and are a signal of things to come. >> have we informed beijing, it's my understanding these entities operate in china and a small number of other jurisdictions. have we informed aging of the activities of these entities and communicated the expectation of the u.s. government that their actions be curbed? >> yes sir, both the department of the treasury in the department of state are in repeated communications with our counterparts in china, often very specifically with respect to entities we believe are associated with the north korean regime and we make very specific request for action on these entities. >> thank you.
look this is a problem that goes back to a number of administrations before this one but the president, and the president didn't inherit a complex problem in korea but his mixed in and consistent messaging is self-inflicted wound and again i don't see the purpose of arguing with south korea on trade at a time when we need to show strong resolve. so let me ask you this, i have so many questions to ask i can never get them in such a short period of time but let me go back to secretary billingsley. the chairman mentioned several large chinese banks in his remarks. china merchants bank was one of them. have we taken action against them and if we haven't, why
haven't we? >> congressman we have taken action against bank of dandong as was discussed earlier which we believe is a money laundering concern associated with north korea and our actions have had a very clear effect on that bank's operations. that is a signal of our intent to move forward with expunging from the international financial system and a financial institution which is making insufficient action from the anti-money laundering against korea. we believe the next most important thing to do here is to very specifically target and expose those individuals who are the financial acela taters for the north korean regime who set up these elaborate funds and shell company structures which are then used to get the bank accounts to launder the money. that saved priority focus area for us and we are driving
quickly forward on that matter. >> thank you. secretary thornton did you want to add something? >> i want to add to the committee the chinese have announced measures against all of their big banks operating particularly in northeast china issuing warnings and drove additions about opening accounts for north korean actors so they are feeling some pressure on this and making public statements. >> one quick thing, you both would agree that any kind of resolution or partial resolution of this crisis had to go through china and it's virtually impossible to not involve china? i think we all think it's the one country that can influence north korean behavior. do you both agree with that? >> i do.
>> okay thank you mr. chairman okay thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. engel. we go to mr. chris smith of new jersey with the subcommittee on human rights. >> thank you mr. chairman for your leadership and for this hearing. and i want to thank our distinguished witnesses for painstaking work in the details of this. it's an extremely difficult fight and i want to thank you for what you are doing everyday to make a difference. i want to express my deepest respect to ambassador haley and the administration for tracking resolution 2375 as you have pointed out to first sanctions ever meted against the north koreans. my hope is china and russia will comply with the terms and conditions than you might want to speak to your expectations about that. obviously in the past it's been lackluster in many ways. i would also appreciate your thoughts and how you judge the success or failure of strategic patience and whether or not you
thought that's needed and got us to it right now. for many there is a profound significant underappreciate chen to the deification of -- i have written books about and talk to the diaspora and refugees who speak and they say you americans don't get it. the worship of kim dash cams son of a gun is so deeply embedded in it does lead to a fanaticism that rifles -- rivals isis fanaticism and what they would do for the great leader going back now and i think if we underappreciate that do you think an information search, there's nothing that precludes us from broadcasting despite jamming capabilities that they might have even more to did
mystify him because the big lie has certainly been embedded in the hearts and minds of so many north koreans for so long. every time i talk to a group and i asked that question they lack eloquence from the youngest age and things versions one of the leaders dies and tears and people throwing themselves on the ground, it's not fake. fanaticism and when it comes to the military that means that will be carried out with horrific consequences for those that are defending north korea and elsewhere. when we know china subsidizes north korea's bad behavior. it's able to repatriate those who escaped to china and direct contravention of the refugee convention and provides kim jong un currency by employing thousands of trafficked workers. i'm wondering if the department
is looking at with regards to china imposing magnitsky sanctions. the mission of north korea recommend we have the law and i hope that's something that's either and/or consideration hopefully we will hear soon about that. >> thank you very much. i think of course the u.s. state department has been very concerned about the egregious human rights situation in north korea for decades. we have had a special representative working on these issues and we have were close at hand. we have made some good progress or at least we have taken a number of very significant actions in this area and we will continue to do so.
i think the question of increasing information access inside the korea is one that we certainly have looked at and are working on and whether we can do more there i think we are eyes looking at whether we can do more and what we can do more effectively. i think from my standpoint one of the biggest ways we can get people inside north korea to question what the regime is doing is by making it very difficult for them to pay the military and to provide for their citizens. i think that's really what we are very focused on an addition to trying to knock down the proliferation networks that are contributing to the weapons program. so there is a litany of egregious behavior across-the-board that we want to go after every single aspect of that but i think looking at cutting off the economic flows to north korea is another way. >> of course that would include the complicity of tehran with the ballistic missile program in
north korea? >> sorry i didn't get the connection. >> the cooperation between the iranians and pyongyang when it comes to ballistic missiles is something that i and others ask questions. unfortunately that was left off the table in the final agreement and the concern is cooperation continues today and i hope that something that's aggressively being pursued as well. >> we are certainly looking at that. >> first of all congressman your leadership on human rights matters as has been for quite a long time. at the chance for work for you and as a staffer from the senate foreign relations committee back in the 1990s and again appreciate the stand they take on these matters. we are specifically looking at the number of individuals in north korea who are engaged in egregious outrages human rights
abuses. this matter, you've articulated it exactly correctly however i'm not sure that cults of personality necessarily extends to those around the dear leader. he very much depends upon this hard currency revenue as the chairman has noted to maintain his opulent lifestyle and that a the people around him so the extent to which reigning in his ability to generate hard currency not only strikes his ability engage in wmd missile programs or submit -- presumably increases the fragility of the regime around him. this as we would say a twofer. >> mr. brad sherman of california. >> sudan north korea will have more nuclear weapons than they feel is absolutely necessary to defend themselves from us but they will need hard currency
that they might prefer actual cash currency. iran is having some strengths in its ability to develop nuclear weapons. mr. assistant secretary do we have any understanding with china for nonstop flights between pyongyang and tehran will be forced to stop or do we have anything else that would prevent this obvious economic deal? >> i will defer the specific discussions on air coryell and flights in and from north korea. i would also caution, note that as they move forward on these two. >> i have very limited time. do we have anything or not? >> i know that we have limitations on air refueling. the chinese have refused to refuel. >> i'm saying do we have any
understanding with china that there'll be nonstop no refueling planes going from pyongyang to tehran loading fuel are coming back with nuclear weapons? >> no, we don't. >> we don't. we have one country that has saran wrapped hard currency and we have another country that is the assistant secretaries work is done well will need a billion dollars in currency and will have a number of nuclear weapons that they could sell. folks i've been coming to this room for 20 years and not much has changed changed. we have got iliana smiling down upon us. that's good and we have some electronics but for 20 years administrations have been coming here and telling me that we don't have to make any concessions to north korea. we don't have to do anything
that would make any single american company upset and we are going to make the american people safe. for 20 years i've been hearing that over and over again today here we are going to have an precedent sanctions which means we have found a few more companies to sanction just as they have invented a few more companies and created them whether we can list them faster than they can create them i don't know. the fact is that north korea's real gdp has grown 50% in the last 20 years. assistant secretary if you are successful with your sanctions you might just cause them not to increase their gdp which means they still have 50% more than they found necessary to hold onto power back in 1997. but while we haven't made the american people safer we have
met the political objectives here in the united states. we don't threaten china even a little bit with country sanctions because that would be politically difficult for the united states to do. we don't adopt reasonable objectives like a freeze in the north korean program because that would be politically difficult to do. what we do is what we have been doing for 20 years. chairman royce has always come up with this or that better sanctions and sometimes the ideas are listened to and sometimes they are not that there is never enough pressure on the north korean regime to cause a regime threatening level. this is a regime that survived the famines in the 1990s, late 1990s. now their gdp is 50% higher and is going up about every year. china is not going to allow us
to put regime threatening pressure on the north korean regime. they may put, punish them for what they are doing and how they are doing it and how disruptive they are and how headline grabbing they are but mr. assistant secretary do we even have a plan for threatening china with country sanctions, tariffs on all goods or is it just a matter that well your number seven bank will be a list of business in the united states and your number 125 banks will? if you were running a retailer would you think there was the slightest risk of your supply chain to china because of china's unwillingness to engage in the kinds of sanctions necessary just to get a freeze of the nuclear program? >> congressmen you raise a good point and the chairman noted that china's central to the matter.
>> we are not doing enough to force them to change their behavior which is to punish north korea a little bit for being a little bit too flamboyant and their actions but to make sure that the regime can survive. this regime won't even agree to freeze their nuclear program unless you have something at least halfway threatening sanctions. >> i'm not sure i agree with that. >> you think the regime would give up its nuclear program even if they said well we can survive the sanctions that we care so much about our people and we care about our gdp? >> i wouldn't speculate on thought processes. what i would focus on is the chinese center of gravity here. but i know from a pressure standpoint the pace of action that we have taken its
unprecedented just like the last 19 years when you sat in that chair and told me its unprecedented. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i think the gentleman is raising exactly the bottom-line question here. in other words, we are deferential here to a point but it's been a long time since the 94 framework agreement with north korea. it's been a long long time waiting for china to comply with the sanctions we have passed and frankly the sanctions with the united nations. you just laid out for us with the charge that you have provided, china understands that coal is circumventing the sanctions and being unloaded just as they understand that these banks are not compliant with the provisions that have passed the security council.
i think mr. sherman raises a point. i've only seen once in 2005 and in response as i said to north korea's counterfeiting our currency and that power was soon taken away from treasury than i ever saw anything that cut off hard currency into the regime and that was because we didn't give anyone an option, anywhere. if you were doing business we were shutting down those institutions so i would just say this is where the discussion needs to go next if there is in full compliance with the sanctions that the u.n. has passed. what is at risk is our national security and there's only one way to shut a program down with a country like north korea that doesn't have its own revenues and i think the gentleman from
california for raising the point and i yield back to him. >> i'll just say for 20 years we talked about company sanctions instead of country sanctions. for 20 years china has carried out a policy where they smile at us but they have done enough with north korea so their gdp is 50% higher in real terms. that's much better economic growth than we have achieved so the sanctions have been -- have not prevented a high level of economic growth and my guess is that we will continue the policies that we have in the past perhaps at a louder volume and i would finally point out with got to remember how small the north korean economy is and how difficult it is to squeeze. yes we are trying to go after their oil but they use about the same amount of oil as 150 gas stations total, the whole
country. that's less than or are on ventura boulevard. so it's going to be, and of course they can liquefy their coal and use that as oil so it's going to be tough to put this regime under no pressure to even get a freeze and the idea that we would ever get this regime having seen gadhafi to actually give up its nuclear weapons. i yield back. >> we go to mr. dana rohrabacher of california, chairman of the europe and eurasia committee and emerging threats. >> banking very much mr. chairman and thank you congressman engel for your party leadership on this committee dealing with the issues of this magnitude to thank you very much for your responsible leadership. i share my colleague mr. sherman's frustration and skepticism that was just expressed. my father was a korean war
veteran and i would hope the very last thing that is on anybody's mind is to try to exercise more influence by putting more american troops in south korea. that is not the path to the solution to this problem. so what are the solutions? obviously we are being told and what you are saying in terms of economic sanctions i agree with mr. sherman and i'm very skeptical if any of that's going to have an impact. i remember being here and sitting a little bit over there at the time when president clinton proposed and passed through this congress a plan that would give the north koreans billions of dollars in american assistance.
of course we just did that with iranians now too with the same idea that we are going to take some blood thirsty tyrants and we are going to pay them off by giving them some sort of aid program for their countries. so what is the solution and first of all what is the challenge? am i mistaken that i have heard votes from the official korean government threatening to rain of mass destruction of some kind upon the united states? has he actually made threats to in some way kill millions of americans with a nuclear attack? i can't hear you. >> i don't know pia said the specific words but they are certainly been a litany of threats including guam and a video showing bombs raining on american cities.
>> okay so he has made it clear as the leader of that country he is willing to murder millions of americans with the technology. let a note then that i would hope what we do not consider putting u.s. troops in south korea as a solution. i would hope that we would be willing to use force which is something that nobody seems to want to mention and i think this is perhaps the only thing people like that understand so i would sit just, i won't ask what type of force has been ruled out and i'm sure the administration's got the parameters of what type of force they are willing to use but i would certainly think the use of defensive forces and again thank you ronald reagan for insisting we have antimissile systems available.
i would hope that the next time the north koreans launched a rocket especially one that will traverse over our ally japan, i would hope that we should down as a message to the north koreans and two other people like japan who were counting on us. unless we demonstrate we are willing to use force there's no reason for them to believe we will. also antimissile defense type of approach, i would hope that if indeed another missile was launched or preparing for a launch that we conduct a cyber attack on north korea and guess it is a very small economy and a small country. a cyber attack against that type
of threat should be affect give but it is a use of force without major loss of life which is what ronald reagan talked about all the time. we don't want to be put in a position where our alternative is murdering millions of people who were basically the victims themselves of a totalitarian regime. so i won't ask what parameters we have in the use of force but let me just note i don't believe that sanctions alone will have an impact on tyrants that murder their own family and have been so abusive and murderous to their own people. i don't believe buying them off as president clinton tried to do , now we are stuck with this, are down the road from mad deal we now have this and those billions of dollars in
assistance we gave to north korea i would imagine provided them other money that they could put into developing their own nuclear weapons system. with that said good luck to you all. thank you very much and thank you to our leadership in this committee. we are all americans in this, let's hope for the best but prepare for the worst. >> thank you mr. rohrabacher. they now go to mr. gerry connolly of virginia. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome. you know we talk a lot about bipartisanship and we want high partisanship on this committee and in our foreign policy but we don't get high partisanship when we ignore history or when we whitewash statements and actions of the current president with respect to north korea. we have a model that works. of course a lot of people didn't support it and that's called the
iran nuclear agreement. recently the united nations certified they are compliant. a rollback a nuclear program. involve cooperation not just with our allies come with their adversaries russia, china and have iran at the table. too wet and is u.s. policy? what i didn't hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle including the chairman in his opening statement, powerful opening statement i support tougher sanctions, always have but it's one part of a policy, not the whole policy. as iran experienced demonstrated there has to be some reward for compliance and cooperation at the end of the day or you are left with the policy talking loudly and carrying a stick.
we haven't talked about the fact that the president of the united states in the midst of this crisis threatens our allies the most vulnerable party to north korea with fabrication of a free trademark agreement that we worked so hard to get. he accused the new south korean president of appeasement. he threatened to cut off trade with any country that trades with north korea. including allies like india and germany portugal, france thailand the philippines. are we going to cut off economic relations with other nations? it's a heavy threat. ..
president is engaged in a policy of appeasement in any respect with respect to the north? >> no, i think we've been working very hard to get them to come around and be on the same page as we and the rest of our allies come around very nicely i think. >> i also served on the committee and worked with your former boss on the other side of the aisle also made a lot of music together which surprised the reagan administration and the bush administration afterwards. shipping coal and providing the foreign exchange for the north korean regime.
that would signal a change in the chinese behavior for the better or is it another empty promise violated with impunity. >> to be determined. with the security council resolutions that are in effect of sanctions but complete embargoes of coal, iron, lead, textiles and seafood from the maritime enforcement of the security council decisions that are binding on all members of the un is going to be crucial going forward. >> at the end of the day let's
said it has been for a long time and continues to be. it seems to me there are two things which could get china's attention. they've given lipservice per decades now. but one of those things is the trade with the u.s. is significant and it seems some sanctions on banks that may help a little bit but it's not going to have the results we all want to back off this march to madness in the nuclear program. so one thing is if we actually do cut off trade would it have an adverse impact on the economy, of course it would. however, i would say that pales in comparison to the american economy if we see a thermonuclear device go off in seattle or the cisco or new york or washington.
so that's one thing that i think could get china's attention. and i think the other thing you may have been thinking about this when you said that we are discussing with japan and south korea what they may want to move ahead on. and i don't know if this is what you have in mind or not this is what i had in mind and have said this for years they do not want japan or south korea to have their own nuclear programs. and i have thought for a long time that we should be discussing that with them and i think the discussions alone could have gotten their attention to get them to put pressure on north korea to back off. it may be too late for that now. but could you comment on those two items which perhaps could give china to actually put sufficient pressure on north
korea to back away? >> looking to every option we are using all of our global partners to speak up because we do see china as the key to the solutions of this problem if we can get there. as for cutting off trade, there would be a huge step in the ramifications for that. i think going after entities and banks i agree trade is preferable. on the issue of defenses in japan and south korea, we have certainly been talking about beefing up the defenses and the
ability to take action. even those discussions have gotten china's attention to. it enables them to ward off a direct attack and it's quite clear that this is an area that is going to be further developed. >> one of the two actions we will continue down this path where he will continue to move forward on this nuclear program and this only military option which is no good to come from that. we know they could target tens
or hundreds of thousands of clients including the last resort of. we have a nuclear china and russia so maybe we end up with a nuclear north korea. a lot of times people talk about the north koreans needing a nuclear program for their own defense. the fact of the matter is there's been basically a nuclear deterrent in effect since the end of the korean war. they have a position that allows them to target sold so the idea that they need nuclear weapons for their own defense when there's never been a retaliation for the provocative or hostile actions that they've taken is a bit of a bridge too far.
it's the anti-terror global nonproliferation system in whidbey we presume )-right-paren sale and sort of proliferation around the world. so, i think two major angles. >> thank you to the witnesses. you said we will never accept north korea as a nuclear state. what did you mean by that, aren't they all pretty a nuclear
state? >> we do not recognize them as a nuclear state. >> what does that mean? >> we do not recognize them as a nuclear weapons state. we don't recognize their program and we won't consider them to have nuclear weapons. we are pursuing denuclearizati denuclearization. >> either it is a nuclear state or it's not. i am not understanding that point. we have to have a realistic context. >> will the gentleman yield for just a second because there is additional complexity. i just want to make that point. >> mr. secretary, you said that resolution 271 prevents 55% of refined petroleum products from coming into north korea and the new sanctions have half a
billion dollars of coal which leaves another half billion and about 45% of petroleum. am i understanding that the sanctions don't reach the balance of that, and if not, why not? >> a couple things. old coal is prohibited under the prior >> pull the microphone a little closer. >> it is not allowed to trade in the cold, period. nor in iron ore, lead, or >> so they relate to noncompliance. >> the number i gave you is that fuzzy math done on how much gasoline versus crude oil is imported into north korea from china i think we've heard from a number of colleagues by un
experts on north korea found they were using a livelihood exemption to trade goods and allow companies to sell rocket components. and you said we need to see that happen. that is compliance by the chinese as a center of gravity. we will use the tools at our disposal. what are those tools, and why aren't we already using them? otherwise the sanctions sound good in the press release that with the tools you intend to use and why aren't we already using them? >> north korea has been under sanctions for decades it is a criminal enterprise and they are deeply embedded and have designed them to escape
detection so it is a little complicated to go after these things. we have the international community signed up to it and there is obliged to enforce that we have a running enforcement with the countries around the world of information abou on int we find out illicit networks and ask them to go after them and if not we'l we will use the domestc authorities >> if we surrender the use of the regime to produce the resule results that we've owned by not using every tool that is available to us to the nuclear capabilities. >> i think our strategy is to ramp up the regime and that is what we have been doing.
korean peninsula in the united states is outweighed by their fear of a military conflict on the korean peninsula and that is the calculation. my question is what are the strategies that are being pursued to bring china to that point every calculation of what they are worried about in the korean peninsula they see the actions undermining their own security through the beefing up of the defenses. they are also seeing they are
very alarmed if the behavior and explosion of the tests died on the border is very concerning to them so i see them moving in this direction. it's not fast enough that we are pushing them in that direction and we have an ongoing conversation with them about this at the highest levels. >> i would also add that if the chairman has pointed out the bank of the delta asia sanctions have a crippling effect on the regime that was more than a decade ago. we have for the first time in more than a decade taken action against a chinese bank. this was a very clear warning shot at the chinese understudy and we are in repeated discussions with them that we
cannot accept continued access to the financial system with north koreans through their financial networks. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> chairman of the subcommittee. he joined us in south korea and house passed legislation to improve the ability to get information into north korea >> the recent provocation is the most dangerous yet in launching egoistic missile and detonating a nuclear device today we are backed into a corner and he's getting into a decreasing corner by his actions and we are on the outside of the corner looking
in. but after the administrations failed to fully and women to sanctions they continue the programs it was full of chinese components, so they are complicit in this the secondary sanctions authorized by congress have established that we've done over the past years is often controversial vote for nuclear technology is advanced. the japanese civilians and perhaps the united states and the world community.
i find myself agreeing with my colleague mr. sherman again when he was talking about china. we've been here multiple times. his experience in the committee hearing the story over and over again. you are watching this at a cloe level of engagement. we are discussing what we should have done and i want to know what we need to do to move forward so the sanctions really do work. >> ranking member sherman and i wrote a letter both to the state and treasury providing a list of things that may provide the north korean banks with in respondents and i'm glad to see they've sanctioned and have been complicit with this.
they are great positive moves but there's ten more banks china can sanction up pressure on to stop doing business with north korea. do you have enough tools in your arsenal to make sure the world community and that's why they haven't worked in the past when it has to be from the world community because this is something that is affecting all world community to get to the point where the diplomacy works where we don't have any connecticut conflicts. certainly they don't want to see a nuclear device goes off in a homeland if anybody's so it is this generation's fight to make sure this doesn't happen. is there anything else you need that would make these other countries complicit with the sanctions? >> we definitely believe they
were obligated to enforce the sanctions and it gives the authority to do so and obliges them to do so and opens up a whole spirit of enforcement be actions in the un security council, our representative ambassador haley has taken the key. a backup of the security >> they were on a state sponsor of terrorism and when we look at the act they have done, you say that north korea was using intimidations, the act of
intimidations. so when we took them off the state sponsor of terrorism list do you feel it would be important to put them on that and would it help toughen the sanctions to get compliance by the other countries? >> the state sponsor of terrorism is another statutory to that we have coming in to the secretary is looking at that in the context. >> i'm about out of time. >> i don't know if there are additional authorities that would give us additional tools to go after things. it would be just another layer. >> another layer would be good. i'm sorry assistant secretary, i yield back. >> we go now to mr. snyder of illinois who was also with our delegation further meetings with president moon and other south
korean officials during this time when the north korean missile was shot over in japan. >> thank you for leading the delegation. it was an extraordinary opportunity to understand the situation and the threat also today we've talked a lot about strategy and accelerating the testing and trying to weaponize. we talked a lot about that strategy working within our wall as well as the united states. we've had some discussions.
nor do we seek an accelerated reunification to send troops north of the agreement. we noticed no desire to inflict harm on the north korean people we see as distinct from the regime in pyongyang. i would like to ask if you could simply describe what are north korea's goals? >> i think it is pretty hard to get inside of the mind of the north korean leader, but i think that he has been fairly clear in public statements. to sit down at the table as a sort of nuclear weapons fully developed state. >> as a part of the strategy, but the long-term goal.
>> i do have to defer to the state department on this and drag them to the table but i deferred the state department. >> i think most experts would say the main overarching goal and i think one of the members mentioned abovmentioned the phie representative smith is pretty much an overarching purpose and goal. that seems to be the shared collective wisdom. how would you describe their goal and dynamic? >> they don't want chaos or nukes on the peninsula. they've stated three main goals on this issue and they are
looking to maintain stability in the region to create the conditions for further economic development. we should have sanctions that are the path to put pressure but how we create a clear message that the only path for survival and for them to achieve the goal is through the nuclearization that they are taking the wrong path. what mechanisms can we provide to show them the way they are headed as a risk to the regime and industry option being on the table but there is a open path to them. >> it's difficult to do this when they are shooting and
exploding hydrogen bombs on the border of china but we have been very clear in our public statements that it is the goal and we've used both words and actions to try to drive them in the direction we want them to go. public statements by us and many of our partners and allies but also public messaging. we have been explicit about that in the different sections of the other different views so far and we are continuing to press on that. >> i don't mean the next question any other way than i'm asking it is an honest question. is it better to have a
consistent message that this is what we would do. it's good to have messages for the regime like north korea that has a very opaque communication system and difficulty for information to reach the top leader which is why we as public messaging to get it directly but it's also important not to take any options off the table so that there is sufficient motivation for them to move towards the negotiating table. >> i will ask a question later. we touched on the outside pressure trying to get an alignment with the u.s. and
china. its understand what's happening in north korea and in contrast with the opportunities are and with that, i thank you for the extra time and yield back. i think that you make a very important point in terms of its focus. there is another element i thought with respect to the conversations. they are not afraid of the south korean attack north korean attack because there is a million man army on the border into 100,000 plus all the other hardware. with the issuwhat the issue is h korea is they feel that it's an
illegitimate government in south korea that the founding of the korean peninsula when the occupation was over from japan it should have been unified under the dynasty. it's on getting enough nuclear weapons, hydrogen bombs that buy can turn over and say we are going to be reunified that we are going to be doing it under the regime. i think that is interesting information. it really complicates things in terms of the feeling of the regime.
it may not be the focus of most north koreans who tend to understand the drive to do that is costing the standard of living and its ability to give you one also opportunity. solely in the interest of the megalomaniac that's currently in power. i do think we need to begin the process of having the hearings to dig deeper into this whole calculus.
it is a different strategy to be the same in the nuclear weapons, but trying to create the opportunity for engagement is entirely different and much more challenging i want to thank all of you for being here and commend the president for finally taking a tough perspective being very open about the challenge of our generation. it's the world order to the nuclearization to the nuclear proliferation and as far as i see it there's a lot of folks here at the hearing or if you watch the media, they all say there's no military option. in order to achieve our objectives, and we see going
about these in some circles we have three areas. number one is diplomacy that is ramping up in a big way through the economic use and everything else. number two, missile defense which we would obviously need in the case that we have to defend ourselves. and third is the military option. people understand and tremendous power and how they work in the various instruments of power it has to understand that you cannot do diplomacy with an adversary without a big stick to use whether that is military, economic, whatever other has to be on the table to make diplomacy work.
the reality is if we pack up and say as long as we build a missile defense, they will be allowed a nuclear weapon. it will be fairly soon and when in fact you've just given north korea defector access to the north korean weapon. when people go out and say there is no military option, it should be used only in doomsday scenarios for which i think this breaks up a scenario is that strengthened the diplomatic hand or the ability to get them to the table or does it weaken it? i think we would be unwise to take anything off the table.
we gave all kinds of heavy fuel oil to the administration and look where we are now. we are not going to kick the can down the road. he ihe's testing the advanced nuclear designs. as a matter of time before they make its pose an existential threat not just our friends and allies, but us. as they wrote in an op-ed we have to live with a nuclear north korea. let me ask you a question. if we say as long as we have missile defense.
even if we don't say we've accepted them that if we de facto accept them what does that do when it runs out of time to south korea, japan to enforce the nuclear nonproliferation? >> i will d give her the state department on the broader implications but we are not willing to live with a nuclear north korea. north korea has proven that they are certainly willing to share the nuclear technology with all manners of the regime's two so the capabilities. there was an op-ed where he pointed out it was the recent anniversary of the strike on a nuclear facility that was alleged to have been constructed with the north korean support so
these are big issues. we are determined to induce thee chinese to help solve this problem. >> i would give you time, but i know. to reiterate what the secretary said, i couldn't imagine in a situation seriously is in today which is tragic and there's been a lack of action on our part to fix that. i couldn't imagine how they had a nuclear program what we would be looking at today and there is a lot of concern of social instability. people don't like to be oppressed even in a place like north korea what happens when the guard destabilized and these are all important questions. i want to commend you and the administration and i yield back
think you for bringing us together on this very important issue that we have dealing with north korea and all other problems they have caused most recently. i think we pretty much all agree that there is no magic bullet in dealing with this bridging and we are in agreement that everything we've done has not worked so where have we gone wrong i don't know. part of that, we are trying to address here. i think we have to be pretty realistic that it is willing to do anything to put people at risk to achieve a nuclear weapon
to come far enough to reach american citizens. i represent la county and san francisco. we haven't mentioned hawaii which is a lot closer and our territories. another issue that we failed to neglect is the consumer issue. we haven't really engaged consumers in the global inclusion to deal with north korea and china's appetite to have the slave type workers working in their company. when i am buying products where does that change was made by to be the bigger issue is are we hitting the right targets and
are we doing enough to inflict the maximum pain on the regime versus the maximum pain on the people of north korea. the congresswoman and i have introduced hr 3261 to produce a national intelligence estimate of the revenue sources as the north korean regime to make the sanctions policy more precise and effective but we cannot get away from engaging more people in the doomsday clock it was advanced by another 30 seconds
in january and we missed another opportunity to talk about what is happening in the area more closely. i would like to ask if we need to have a better picture of north korea for the sanctions to be more effective. >> we are an intelligence driven organization and the more precise information that can be generated, the better. the point about opportunities missed, we are at the point now where enforcement is crucial. the security council resolutions and in the past it was difficult to judge the provisions of.
what are our options in dealing with that? >> the single most important thing that we can do is force the complete prohibition on the sale of north korea and raw materials >> thank you all for being here. my understanding is the russians, stalin, the regime first to invade the south in my opinion to the west being aware of this taking place and eastern europe when the soviet union kept moving through and taking that area.
they've all been very belligerent and committed crimes going all the way back to the hijacking of to the attempted assassination with a history of doing bad things. as the chairman said they want to conquer the south. the war has never ended its cease-fire or truce or agreement that there is no treaty involved. and we've been plagued by them for years. they talk about causing nuclear capability and they say we will pay you not to do that if you promise to be nice. and so, they promised not to declare war on anybody. they take the money supposedly
to feed their starving people and what do they do a few years later they do the same thing. and this has been going on all the way back to the clinton administration. they understand one thing. the united states can be bought off if they just make a lot of noise about doing bad things to the rest of us. we should understand that being nice and saying that we will take care of you. the president, this president has taken a different point of view and is talking in a language that kim can understand. i understand the secretary ambassador for her work getting
the two latest rounds of sanctions through the un and the idea that the chinese and the russians are going to agree that the sanctions on north korea is a stroke of genius. i don't know how she did that especially the russians who started this was stolen back in 1950. so, i want to know what our options are. i want to know where we are going. we all want to sanction. if they hadn't really done much to stop anything that we want to sanctions. but if he doesn't stop it. what is the u.s. plan and surely they have a contingency plan down the road. you are all looking at each other. what is the contingency plan. we want sanctions and to stop
the slave trade but what if he doesn't because he doesn't think like we do. so what are the rest of the options? >> we have a strategy you all heard from others. it's the pressure strategy. we want to solve this through a negotiated settlement peacefully but we are not taking any options off the table we have been very clear about the strategy we are not going to pay for the negotiations previously as mentioned in past history
when we dealt with the regime. we are going to band together with the coalition of global partners to choke off all of their economic revenue. >> so we have a military option down the road if nothing works. would you agree with that? >> we are not going to take any of those options off the table. >> i would offer him a very precise level and you will see in my written remarks we are targeting two things, the access to hard currency because he needs the dollars for the missile programs and we are targeting the way that he still has access to the international financial system we need to rip that out root and stem and that is what we are focused on this shutting down the currencies through the news un embargoes that have successfully gotten in place. these are total cost.
that is a huge percentage of the revenue but to this dictator with a number of the other things treating. secondly because of the lack of enforcement in the international system, the countries that talk about china today and russia still has access to the international financial system because there are brokers and agents operating with broad jurisdictions. jurisdictions. that has to stop, so that is our next step. >> mr. ted lewis california. >> thank you to the witnesses for the public service. i served on active duty on the u.s. pacific command in the 1990s at guam.
we did a series of exercises most of them directed at north korea and it's clear there were no good military options. the reason i bring that up is because the diplomatic and economic options depend on whether you have a good military option and often it's not for us to say. it's dictated by the facts on the ground.
they are good at hiding things, yes. >> in order to get rid of those weapons to get the goals for the military force we would need a and innovation to find the weapons and destroy them is the perfect >> since we don't know what the nuclear weapons are and how many they have come in order to denuclearize the option we would need a ground invasion to find the weapons and destroy them isn't that correct? for you to do your job you also need to understand the military option, so let me just go on a.
to keep this in the future we would need to occupy the country or have them as one of the allies occupy the country and keep them from doing this in the future. >> i don't know if that is necessarily. they've abandoned the nuclear programs and ambitions as a good example. after the use of military force through other means i understand they are giving up increasing the nuclear weapons if we have prior economic or diplomatic pressure but we may use military force and they are going to resist it. we would need regime change to occupy the country or at least that is my sense.
they've also got about 5,000 tons of chemical weapons is that correct? >> than thethen they have a mase conventional arsenal of rockets and artillery and they can launch all of that. with the options they want to be able to contain escalation isn't that correct. it's happening in a lot of other scenarios but you are telling the story so go ahead. >> the defense secretary has
basically the options would be very ugly which then led me to believe that your job is very critical. we essentially have diplomacy and economic sanctions. it seems we are going to pursue the diplomacy may not be a good idea to have an ambassador to south korea to help us. >> we are working on it. i know the secretary spoke to this the other day. >> it does send a message we are not pursuing it seriously and we are also disrespecting our ally, south korea. we urge the trump administration to get its act together and nominate ambassador. with that, i will yield back. >> we go now to mr. zeldin of new york. >> thank you to both of the witnesses for being here.
i believe that the administration has done a great job over the course of the first several months in office, and making new strides in bringing china into the table and to bring russia to the table to ramp up sanctions efforts to have more multilateral diplomacy, to have increased economic pressure, to engage in further information campaigns in nortnorth korea if it didn't ext previously. and i think the ambassador especially deserves a lot of credit for her hard work at the united nations with success but she has achieved. and we wish her nothing but the best. some of our colleagues have spoken about the idea of not using a military option. i think we all should agree that the military option should be the last possible option we should be using after everything
else. some of my colleagues would go a little bit further almost to suggest taking the military option off the table. and i think from some of the other testimony here in your answers there is certainly an agreement among others. it's the increased economic pressure so it wouldn't be wise, it would be wise to take the military option off the table. has the administration taken a public position on the red line and do you believe we should have one because for me the red wine should be that north korea shouldn't have the ability to
deliver a nuclear warhead to the united states and there's still a component of their development that appears to not be there. the chairman got to get a little bit earlier engaging one of the other colleagues as far as surviving a reentry. so, we are pursuing the diplomacy and the economic angle and information angle thinking the military option is less per preparing the military options with the red line. >> we are here representing the economic sanctions and diplomatic and i've said that we are determined to pursue a peaceful resolution through a settlement. of course we are not taking any options off the table. we realize this is a difficult
problem led by the congressman here. so, i think that what i would say about the red lines, we and the secretary of state are going to choose this campaign to get the regime to change its path and come to the negotiating table with a seriou the seriousf proposals on the denuclearization, how we verify that complete verifiable is what we are seeking for a negotiated settlement. i think we have a lot more room to go to squeeze them and increase the pressure of the international community. and i think we are continuing to see that strategy is working and the north koreans are feeling the pressure and we are focused on getting them back to the table. as far as red lines go for the options, i would want to deter the question to some future point where we are not as much
engaged in the diplomatic and economic pressure part of the campaign. >> i was not offended by any means and i think that he needs to know as someone who is homicidal, not suicidal, he needs to know that he would be putting himself and his regime at a great risk by attacking us. there is a lot of hard work that's been done by the administration doubling down, trickling down making great progress specifically the united nations. i would say if we truly want to prevent them from having the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to the united states, they are getting so much closer to it tha than if we are actualy serious about the military option that we are going to have
to start having that discussion because that may be imminent. the chair of the committee on homeland security. >> if they are capable of delivering an icbm with a nuclear warhead by no looking back historically, this access between pakistan, iran, north korea we had our negotiations and now it looks like north korea has it and then it's very difficult to take it away so in terms of trying to negotiate our way out of this i think the last
previous administrations have failed to get us through that point and now we are where we are in iran is probably watching this whole thing play out in terms of what is the next step going to be. i do think cyber should be looked at as something that could be done to shut them down. i know we have a tremendous capability in that regard so my question is talking about russia and china, are they going to cooperate on the sanctions and my question has to go to the more illicit side of the house. he has this north korea in office 39 races illegal exports
of minerals, counterfeit other things would be needed to counteract that and when it comes to proliferation and the sale of our, can you tell me how much you estimate they are making off proliferation to countries like iran and syria? >> congressman, it's good to see you. one of the things that is important to underscore is the treasury department is what we used to close the bank if section 311 under the act to rule out the bank. in terms of the proliferation of
weaponry, we have been able to dry up much of the illicit sales that they were engaged in to the regime's and so on. there's still several transactions that they are actively engaging various countries to detour going down that road. it would be very unwise for him to take the section. because of the success that the ambassador had at the un, in effect you were asking about illicit transactions. nearly every exports coming out today as of last night, nearly every exper exports is illicit. textiles are illicit. you cannot trade basic minerals anymore. under the previous administration, talking about bureau 391 of the things they would do is so these statutes
and then as a little sweetener for paying six times the rate of the statute that organization was sanctioned and under our administration they started rooting out the rest of that arts and monuments. it is nevertheless a big step forward and we intend to force that as well on multiple occasions with counterparts in the gulf and elsewhere.
with the others in th and the u. government when we find them we try to block them and deter them with some success in a continuing effort on our part. this may be another setting. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and for answering the members questions here today. i am sure more will be submitted for the record. there are few issues urgent for us but i don't think few are
more urgent than those at this time and the administration recognized this early on. the secretary's first focus for the secretary of state was north korea and he's been extensively engaged working with allies in the region while pressuring china and russia and other countries that are funding the regime. we need more sanctions, tougher sanctions, we need to supercharge this right now. the administration is moving in the right direction. we need to bring to bear and stop giving only lipservice to the power of information outside of north korea broadcasting